I think there is nothing wrong in the project releasing official `Dockerfile`s... that's just source code, which is what we release.
If Docker or A.N.Other then wants to go and build images from those `Dockerfile`s then that's fine with me. On 22 October 2017 at 01:22, Michael Osipov <[email protected]> wrote: > Am 2017-10-22 um 04:24 schrieb Manfred Moser: > >> Following up on that remark and my earlier remark that we should NOT make >> this official .. here are my remarks: >> >> - so far the only binaries we assemble and call official are the tar.gz >> and zip archives (and even that is a gray line since official there are >> only sources from Apache) >> - we do NOT support (by calling them official) any other binaries such as >> - linux distro versions >> - osx package versions (brews, ports) >> - windows packages >> - sdkman >> - and many others >> - the complexity of the docker images is greater than any of the above >> since it includes those factors.. >> >> Here are a few issues why I would object to this being the official images >> >> - only openjdk and ibm java, no oracle java, no others such as Zulu or >> whatever >> - limited os selection (only alpine and debian and windows from what I >> can tell), no centos, no ubuntu >> - binaries are download from a mirror rather than the actual apache >> servers (alternatively maybe could use Central) >> >> These above factors imho show that there is a selection that has been >> made and I do not think we as the Apache Maven project should make this >> selection. >> >> As such I would suggest to keep it as is. >> >> An open source project from an individual that provides Maven binaries on >> Docker images. Just happens to be the case that the same person is also a >> Maven PMC (great btw!). >> >> If we make this part of the officially supplied binaries we could also >> think about >> >> - making binaries for various Linux distros in the first place (then we >> wouldnt even need docker images since it could be a one line to install an >> official Maven distro on them) >> - supplying binaries to SDKMan, ports, brew, chocolatey and so on >> - pull all mojohaus plugins into Apache (they are mostly the same >> committers..) >> - pull other Maven projects in as desired >> >> You see where this leads... a LOT of work. In my opinion as the Apache >> Maven project we should focus on just that. Maven itself, our current >> plugins and related projects. We all know thats already more work than we >> can reasonably shoulder.. I see no reason to add more. >> >> > > Perfect, you read my mind. > +2 > > > Carlos Sanchez wrote on 2017-10-21 03:59: >> >> BTW there are possibly more than one image build for each maven version. >>> For a variety of reasons, like security issues in OS or to upgrade JDK or >>> because docker rebuilds it, so it is not feasible to vote each of them. >>> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
